73% support the "Buffett Rule"

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,664
Location
The Golden State
Werbung:
Obviously, the Daily Kos liked the results.

Does that mean you think the numbers are inaccurate?

I think if you run the same poll often/long enough, you will get whatever results you want. Who knows, maybe the first thousand people they robocalled showed 92% against the "Buffet Rule" so they kept repeating the poll until they got the desired result.
 
Just to see what comments it generates.
I think it's well established that higher tax rates don't equate to revenue being a higher % of GDP... Additionally, lowering the CG rate resulted in higher CG revenue, about double. So anyone who wants to raise the tax rates on "millionaires and billionaires" is either wanting to do so out of ignorance or sheer malice and envy.
 
I think it's well established that higher tax rates don't equate to revenue being a higher % of GDP... Additionally, lowering the CG rate resulted in higher CG revenue, about double. So anyone who wants to raise the tax rates on "millionaires and billionaires" is either wanting to do so out of ignorance or sheer malice and envy.

That's an interesting comment, that raising rates on capital gains actually decreases revenues from same. Where did you find that statistic?
 
I think it's well established that higher tax rates don't equate to revenue being a higher % of GDP... Additionally, lowering the CG rate resulted in higher CG revenue, about double. So anyone who wants to raise the tax rates on "millionaires and billionaires" is either wanting to do so out of ignorance or sheer malice and envy.


I would (maybe) agree with you IF we didn't have this huge deficit (that the GOP in particular seems more worried about).

In this time of huge deficit, and in light of the fact that the top wealth has gotten greater in this period of dramatic downturn for everyone else, it seems fair to me that the cuts to welfare programs should be AT THE LEAST matched by an increase in taxes for the top 2%.

Neither spending cuts or increased taxes will resolve the debt ON ITS OWN. . .but a combination of the two will make TWICE the dent.

And, by the way, I am still not convinced that higher tax rates will bring the GDP down. . .what brings the GDP down is the lack of demand, both within the US and abroad. . .and that diminish the revenues available to the government, at a time when there is a GREATER demand for assistance to people who suffer the most from the downturn.

Unemployed people are no more responsible for the deficit than the wealthy are. . . probably less, as they have not as much invested in Wall Street, multi-million dollars homes, and do not receive "corporate wellfare!"

But the very wealthy do not suffer from this downturn. . .on the contrary, big corporations are loaded with money, and the wealthy investor can, if he choose, take advantage of the disastrous housing market to purchase dozens, even hundred of bank owned properties for close to 1/2 the price they were valued at even 2 years ago. . .and rent those properties for premium dollars to the people who have lost their home!

It is obvious that when the times are good, the wealthy are more than happy to "share in the wealth," and increase their holdings. . .
Well, it seems fair than when the times are bad, they should be asked to "share in the pain" as well.
 
And, by the way, I am still not convinced that higher tax rates will bring the GDP down. . .
I never claimed it would. If you look at the historical data and acknowledge the facts regarding tax rates and revenue as a % of GDP, increasing tax rates will NOT result in revenue being a higher % of GDP. As the GDP goes up, revenue as a % of GDP goes up, as GDP goes down, revenue as a % of GDP goes down.

I know you've been conditioned to believe that higher tax rates will result in additional revenue, it seems logical, but it's simply not true.
 
I am surprised more didn't support it. Since most people don't make $1,000,000 a year, why wouldn't they get behind the idea of someone else shouldering the burden?
 
I am surprised more didn't support it. Since most people don't make $1,000,000 a year, why wouldn't they get behind the idea of someone else shouldering the burden?
For real... It's like when I suggested that we all vote for you to buy us lunch. Lagboltz didn't understand the point I was making but when you get a chance to vote yourself a benefit at someone elses expense, the only people who are really expected to vote against such a proposal are the ones who are expected to pay, not the people expecting to get a free lunch.
 
I am surprised more didn't support it. Since most people don't make $1,000,000 a year, why wouldn't they get behind the idea of someone else shouldering the burden?

Because it is not a question of logic or fairness. . .it is a question of blind partisanship.

It is obvious that, asking a person who has a NET income of $10 millions a year to pay an additional $200,000 in tax is NOT going to change his life style, keep him from feeding his kids, from sending them to private school and Harvard, and to go on the around the world cruise.

It is also obvious that cutting a single mother's food stamps by 5% will affect her ability to feed her kids.

I am just surprise that more people cannot see that.

I am far from making $10 millions a year, but I KNOW that If I should pay an extra $5,000 a year in taxes, it wouldn't change my life style. I would still eat in restaurants, I would still go on vacations, I would still send presents to my kids and grandkids, and my husband would still play golf in our community at $100 a shot.

And. . .I don't like the feeling. I do have a nagging feeling that it isn't fair, and that I am NOT on the "right side" of fairness.

I know what many replies will be: Why don't you just send that extra $5,000 to the IRS, or give it to charity?

I do some of that (charity I mean), but I do believe that taking care of our fellow humans should NOT be a question of "charity," but a question of duty, or responsibility.

I know, many people here will think I'm crazy. But I cannot and wouldn't want to silence my conscience. I have been blessed. And with blessings come responsibilities.

Albert Einstein said:

"A hundred times every day, I tell myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure I have received."
 
Werbung:
Because it is not a question of logic or fairness. . .it is a question of blind partisanship.

It is obvious that, asking a person who has a NET income of $10 millions a year to pay an additional $200,000 in tax is NOT going to change his life style, keep him from feeding his kids, from sending them to private school and Harvard, and to go on the around the world cruise.

It is also obvious that cutting a single mother's food stamps by 5% will affect her ability to feed her kids.

I am just surprise that more people cannot see that.

I am far from making $10 millions a year, but I KNOW that If I should pay an extra $5,000 a year in taxes, it wouldn't change my life style. I would still eat in restaurants, I would still go on vacations, I would still send presents to my kids and grandkids, and my husband would still play golf in our community at $100 a shot.

And. . .I don't like the feeling. I do have a nagging feeling that it isn't fair, and that I am NOT on the "right side" of fairness.

I know what many replies will be: Why don't you just send that extra $5,000 to the IRS, or give it to charity?

I do some of that (charity I mean), but I do believe that taking care of our fellow humans should NOT be a question of "charity," but a question of duty, or responsibility.

I know, many people here will think I'm crazy. But I cannot and wouldn't want to silence my conscience. I have been blessed. And with blessings come responsibilities.

Albert Einstein said:

Ok, let us take at face value that you feel this way...what about the people that don't?
 
Back
Top